Prince Andrew says he has no recollection of meeting Epstein accuser

[faraday]

Having done a law degree module at a university, you're probably somewhat correct.

[Tug]

Hey Andrew lighten up will ya not rembering is giving the poor tart a lousy review lol stop beeing such a cad lol

[mfd101]

10 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I'll stick my neck out here but I strongly suspect he ain't going to go to court anytime soon and most probably if at all. 

Well, probably not in the UK ... but there's always the possibility at some stage of an extradition request from the US. Now wouldn't the progress on THAT be fascinating to watch! I don't suppose PM Johnson would give a damn as far as looking after the Royals is concerned. And PM Corbyn would be delighted ...

[Rookiescot]

On 11/17/2019 at 8:07 PM, KhaoYai said:

Exposed as a beast?  He may well have been convicted but have you read the actual details of the case?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

 

He pleaded guilt to the sexual abuse of a 14 year old.

[beautifulthailand99]

He should have said I'm a sleazy git with a high sex drive but not a rapist. I thought all of Jeffery's girls were willing accomplices and I had no knowledge of any payment or coercion with any of the women there that I had massages / sex with and in fact they threw themselves on me . I've never had to or wanted to pay for sex on my life. In fact in the photo she looks over 18 smiling and happy. That would have given him enough space to mount a robust defence as it is his obvious lying is what may do it for him if course he is ever 'done'. 

[248900_1469958220]

Queen: So, how did the BBC interview go Andrew?

 

Prince Andrew: No sweat!

[Sujo]

He meets her in a club where you must be 18 to attend. Goes to a flat willingly, shags the daryl date out of her and now some think he should be charged.

 

Well if he is charged the trial will be held according to laws at the time of alleged offence. Not the laws as they are now.

 

Shagging a 17 year old is not a crime. Though i question her taste.

[Vacuum]

On 11/16/2019 at 3:07 PM, Tippaporn said:

Why do I get the feeling that no one believes him?

I'm sure his mum have faith in him.

[beautifulthailand99]

41 minutes ago, Sujo said:

He meets her in a club where you must be 18 to attend. Goes to a flat willingly, shags the daryl date out of her and now some think he should be charged.

 

Well if he is charged the trial will be held according to laws at the time of alleged offence. Not the laws as they are now.

 

Shagging a 17 year old is not a crime. Though i question her taste.

But he lied and in doing so sowed the seeds of his own destruction. He's finished now even if he doesn't go to court. Toxic to the end. This ain't Thailand though I'm betting he wishes it were. 

[KhaoYai]

1 minute ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

But he lied and in doing so sowed the seeds of his own destruction. He's finished now even if he doesn't go to court. Toxic to the end. This ain't Thailand though I'm betting he wishes it were. 

He lied? Or you think he lied? His story may well be unbelievable but where did he lie?

[beautifulthailand99]

13 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

He lied? Or you think he lied? His story may well be unbelievable but where did he lie?

Ok IMHO that of 96% of the British population and an FBI statement analysis expert. If he's not lying he will be very happy to help the FBI and provide documentary evidence for his assertions. He has at least one detective with him at all times. If he doesn't do that then it is open season on him - which it now already is. If you hang out with a convicted nonce then you get what's coming to you. 

 

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2019/11/statement-analysis-prince-andrew.html

[KhaoYai]

19 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Ok IMHO that of 96% of the British population and an FBI statement analysis expert.

Thank you for that.

[ratcatcher]

On 11/17/2019 at 6:58 PM, wgdanson said:

Maurice Chevalier did.

Each time I see a little girl Of five or six or seven
I can't resist a joyous urge To smile and say
Thank heaven for little girls. For little girls get Bigger every day
Thank heaven for little girls They grow up in The most delightful way.
Those little eyes, So helpless and appealing
When they were flashing Send you crashing Through the ceiling
Thank heaven for little girls Thank heaven for them all
No matter where, No matter who Without them
What would little boys do, Thank heaven
Thank heaven, Thank heaven for little girls.

Lerner & Loewe

[kingdong]

Oh the grand old duke of York he had ten thousand men,will that be tomorrow's headline?

[wgdanson]

33 minutes ago, ratcatcher said:

Without them
What would little boys do, Thank heaven

As we all did, Barclays Bank !   LOL

[soalbundy]

On 11/17/2019 at 1:43 PM, Almer said:

Well he is hardly going to say he remembers it well is he.

The room was dark and she was gagged, could have been anybody.

[wgdanson]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Well if he is charged the trial will be held according to laws at the time of alleged offence

So if someone was found guilty of murdering someone in 1960s, would he be hanged?

[wgdanson]

On 11/18/2019 at 6:10 PM, Mavideol said:

have to say after (wasting 15 minutes of my time) listening to his mumbling for around 15 minutes couldn't bare it for any longer and the poor guy should have kept his mouth shut, sometimes silence is better than a fake statement and the interview did more damage than good to the crown, mommy must be very disappointed

And he certainly need to lose some weight around his fat neck. What is he....60? 

[wgdanson]

27 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

The room was dark and she was gagged, could have been anybody.

Well it wasn't me.....even though I could have! 

[248900_1469958220]

[beautifulthailand99]

Now then,now then,now then howzabout that then....

 

[KhaoYai]

54 minutes ago, wgdanson said:

So if someone was found guilty of murdering someone in 1960s, would he be hanged?

He is correct, laws are not retrospective. More precise details are needed but on the face of it, Prince Andrew could be charged under the later rules on consent if the offence took place after they were introduced but as the alleged events took place before those rules - they don't apply.  Punishments are not retrospective.

 

Just a comment, and not particularly to yourself - Thailand has some pretty draconian laws on defamation. I'm not sure if they apply when the subjects of that defamation are outside Thai territory but they certainly do apply to people making 'defamatory' remarks who are within Thai territory, regardless of their residency status. Some comments made on here are getting pretty close to what may be considered to be defamatory.  Members may wish to consider that both Thailand and England have Royal Families and they do know each other.

[beautifulthailand99]

Just now, KhaoYai said:

He is correct, laws are not retrospective. More precise details are needed but on the face of it, Prince Andrew could be charged under the later rules on consent if the offence took place after they were introduced but as the alleged events took place before those rules - they don't apply.  Punishments are not retrospective.

 

Just a comment, and not particularly to yourself - Thailand has some pretty draconian laws on defamation. I'm not sure if they apply when the subjects of that defamation are outside Thai territory but they certainly do apply to people making 'defamatory' remarks who are within Thai territory, regardless of their residency status. Some comments made on here are getting pretty close to what may be considered to be defamatory.  Members may wish to consider that both Thailand and England have Royal Families and they do know each other.

I think the judicious use of the word allegedly maybe in order though he isn't covered by 112 and the story is being covered by the Thai press. 

[KhaoYai]

2 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

and the story is being covered by the Thai press. 

But are the Thai Press making defamatory comments?

[roo860]

18 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Now then,now then,now then howzabout that then....

 

 

[beautifulthailand99]

3 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

But are the Thai Press making defamatory comments?

The chances of His Royal Highness The Duke of York suing anyone are as close to zero as is possible. In fact in a civil case the burden of proof is lower and I have no doubt he would be doing a 'David Irving' if he ever did. If he is indeed innocent of any crime he should move heaven and earth to provide both the British and US authorities of any evidence he has and do it under oath , and soon.

 

The civil standard is 'the balance of probabilities', often referred to in judgments as "more likely than not".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/11/boris-johnson-must-waive-any-claim-of-immunity-for-prince-andrew/

[beautifulthailand99]

4 hours ago, roo860 said:

 

"That looks like a fake to me or I have no recollection of being upstairs with those people." 

 

In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to a felony charge of solicitation of prostitution involving a minor, and was sentenced to 18 months in prison; he served 13, and was granted work release, which allowed him to commute to an office outside the jail six days a week. He also registered as a sex offender.

 

2010

 

 

 

[KhaoYai]

14 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

The chances of His Royal Highness The Duke of York suing anyone are as close to zero as is possible. In fact in a civil case the burden of proof is lower and I have no doubt he would be doing a 'David Irving' if he ever did. If he is indeed innocent of any crime he should move heaven and earth to provide both the British and US authorities of any evidence he has and do it under oath , and soon.

I am aware that there is little chance of him suing but if he did, the proof is there to see and I'm not convinced the law on defamation doesn't apply. I don't think the US authoriries wish to speak to him regarding any offence he may have committed - rather about the activities of Epstein.

 

As for the British authorities, well nothing has been mentioned about any potential crime yet but in the light of her announcement just yesterday, Victoria Roberts may be called on to either make a formal complaint or retract her statement. She would have to consider though, that in doing so, her activities before and after the alleged offence took place would come to light, as would just how she became involved with Epstein.